Re: Ideas for a possible framework

The point is that, in fact, I'm not leaving the simplicity and beauty of
single RDF quads but I try to reify everything in a model, from SPOs to
triples, into a metamodel which allows for augmenting this reification(s)
with useful metadata which is, in turn, encoded into an RDF quads model
useful for type, relationship and behavior inference.

Sebastián.

On Oct 1, 2016 9:24 PM, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:

> You've cross-posted to a bunch of communities i'm not directly linked-to
> and whilst i understand the context of having a community discussion; i
> don't really understand what additional functionality you are attempting to
> obtain via what appears to be far more complex modelling than the relative
> beauty / simplicity of triples/quads.  Have you tried to build the
> functional outcome that you are trying to define a solution to, using
> existing linked-data systems?
>
> It's worth nothing that the development of what is termed 'RDF' or 'Linked
> Data' in its simple form; has been a work of art produced by many notable
> individuals over a period that extends to decades, but moreover, embodies
> close to 20 years work, patent related IP rationalisation and a great many
> other complex feats 'ticked off' through a structure that may perhaps be
> considered 'too simple' by the initiated. Like all good things...
>
> Whilst i never like to suggest ideas put-forward do not have some merit in
> some form (even when i can't identify it) i do wonder whether you might be
> better off working with existing projects to identify how the sorts of
> things you are trying to achieve; may be done achieved collaborative
> efforts, with others.
>
> Hereafter; a few pointers.
>
> Kingsley has an array of materials online which in-turn fit into a
> solution you can test.
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/
> https://www.youtube.com/user/kidehen/videos
>
> Some of these videos outline functionality that provides interoperability
> between RDBMS and RDF.
>
> https://github.com/solid/solid  is a project that looks to decentralise.
> If you are interested in building an APP, i'm sure they'd be interested in
> more helpers.  It is likely important though that you are able to develop
> the app.
>
> http://linda.epu.ntua.gr/ is a neat little tool that helps you easily
> remap data (ie: CSV data) into RDF.
>
> http://vowl.visualdataweb.org/webvowl/index.html#iri=http://
> lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/schema/versions/2016-08-09.n3 is an
> example of a tool that can help to visualise ontologies.
>
> https://cse.google.com/ helps perform queries based on structured data.
> http://lod-cloud.net/  is a bunch of structured data.
>
> Semantic Reasoning, et.al. leads to knowledge about https://www.w3.org/TR/
> sparql11-query/  which in-turn leads me suggesting you play with
> http://json-ld.org/playground/  and/or http://linkeddata.
> github.io/rdflib.js/example/people/social_book.html as an old example
> that should help.
>
> Beyond that;
>
> It takes time to understand what has already been made, why it's been made
> that way, and how to contribute.  https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/
> 492707794760392704 i use often as an 'intro' piece.
>
> If some particular function exists that is not supported by what is made,
> let us know.  However i'm really not sure what the underlying principles
> are to the way in which you are trying to find purposeful means, at
> present.
>
> The 'build a solid app' strategy may be a really good way to further
> demonstrate your ideas, IMHO.
>
> hope something noted above is useful for you.
>
> Tim. Holborn.
>
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 at 03:23 Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Those sets (and classes) are my ontology. Consider like I'm reifying
>> subjects, predicates, objects and triples into sets and 'calculating' its
>> kinds and this allows for schema less data sources (plain RDF triple
>> sources) type, relationships and behavior inference. That's why I bother
>> with metamodels, because I don't rely with source data coming with an
>> schema or ontology and I have to build or infer one and link and merge it
>> with existing ones. Then, the metamodels allow, for example, to build a LDP
>> or other protocol service from the schema less sources by means of the
>> inferred metadata. The whole document explains how this is intended to be
>> implemented.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Sebastián Samaruga.
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2016 10:02 AM, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Sat., 1 Oct. 2016, 10:16 pm Martynas Jusevičius, <
>> martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> I've said this before and I'll say it again: why do you need to build
>> a (meta)model above RDF? Kind, SubjectKind, Dimension etc. -- why is
>> all this stuff necessary?
>>
>> Do not attempt to extend RDF, and drop the UML/object-oriented models.
>> Instead, work *within* RDF: use triples to store data, and use OWL
>> ontologies, classes, properties, datatypes etc. to model your domain.
>>
>> Those are the only things you need. Show us your ontologies, then you
>> will get better responses. You can try some of these ontology editors:
>> http://protege.stanford.edu/
>> http://www.cognitum.eu/semantics/FluentEditor/
>> http://www.topquadrant.com/tools/modeling-topbraid-
>> composer-standard-edition/
>>
>>
>> Martynas
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > (Apologies for cross posting / over posting)
>> >
>> > Hi, I'm currently a software student and developer. Since I've meet
>> semantic
>> > related technologies development about twelve years ago I've been
>> revolving
>> > with the idea that a framework could be built that could ease building
>> > semantic business applications as they are frameworks for Java and
>> > relational databases.
>> >
>> > A lot of time passed. Now many big players offer solutions that somehow
>> rely
>> > on semantics for their work. And although this could seem strange, here
>> in
>> > Buenos Aires I couldn't find anyone really interested in the area,
>> being in
>> > academia or places I've worked in.
>> >
>> > So, having no one to share my thoughts with, I'm frequently publishing
>> > documents to this list(s) hoping for some kind of peer's feedback.
>> Sorry if
>> > this aren't the right lists or I'm off topic. I send my attachment as a
>> PDF
>> > document. Anyone willing to comment in the original just ask me for the
>> > Google Docs link.
>> >
>> > Note: I've sent this draft before but in a very early version state. I
>> > invite anyone interested in reading to see the last section
>> (Dashboards).
>> > Maybe I'm wrong but I think there is a lot of innovation that may be
>> done
>> > regarding that subject (sorry for the poor diagrams :--)
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Sebastián Samaruga.
>>
>>